With respect to plaintiff’s disability discrimination and retaliation claims, he identified numerous acts that occurred within one-year of the filing of his DFEH Charge. Therefore, the jury’s determination that his complaint with the DFEH was timely is easily explainable. That is, even if you ignore the continuing violation doctrine, plaintiffs disability discrimination and retaliation claims are still timely.

A. Disability Discrimination and Retaliation Claim
The Special Verdict Form on these causes of action asked if plaintiff filed a timely complaint of discrimination with the California Department of Fair Employment and Housing. The answer was: Yes.

The defendant claims the jury’s finding on timeliness is impossible because the two acts plaintiff identified, as set forth in Special Verdict Question #4, #5 and #10 occurred more than one year prior to the filing of the DFEH administrative charge. Special Verdict Question #5 reads as follows:

Was the City’s purported belief that Michael Carter had a perceived mental disability a motivating reason for the City’s decision to send Michael Carter for a fitness for duty evaluation and/or subsequently apply for an involuntary disability retirement?
Question #10 reads as follows:

Did the City of Sacramento send Michael Carter for a fitness for duty evaluation and/or subsequently filed an application for an involuntary retirement for him? (See Part 6 of 19.)